Count Me Out
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In March a Marine special operations unit in Afghanistan was ambushed. In the ensuing fight it is alleged that the unit overreacted, to put it charitably, and killed several Afghan civilians. This resulted in the commander and senior NCO being relieved and that unit being expelled from Afghanistan.
A movement is afoot to defend the actions of that unit.
Count me out.
I understand the stress of troops in combat and where I believe they are getting a raw deal I say so.
Right now my view is that given a most charitable and supportive reading of the facts the unit in question lost all semblance of discipline. Criminal charges may not be appropriate, but neither is defending their actions.
As facts emerge on this, I reserve the right to change my point of view. But at this time I can't defend what seems to be indefensible.
an opinion with the information presented.
Are there any more links you could provide?
Military Times article on this affair
The Marine Corps is expecting criminal charges against at least five Marines from a special operations company who allegedly killed several civilians in Afghanistan last month after a suicide bomb attack on their convoy, The New York Times reported Friday.
Marine and civilian lawyers involved in the case have been told to expect charges against five to seven Marines involved in the shootings, possibly including one officer, the Times quoted an unnamed Marine official as saying.
The official added that a formal inquiry by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service is continuing and could result in fewer or no Marines being charged. The official declined to provide the names or ranks of those likely to be charged, the Times reported.
The company commander, the senior enlisted leader and six members of the company were recalled to Camp Lejeune, N.C., earlier in April, said Maj. Cliff Gilmore, a Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command spokesman. The company, part of 2nd Marine Special Operations Battalion, was ordered out of Afghanistan after the incident but remains deployed in the region.
Gilmore said he didn’t know when the Navy’s probe of the March 4 incident would be completed. No charges have been filed, and Gilmore didn’t release the names of the Marines brought back Lejeune.
“What I expect is a very detailed and thorough investigation,” Gilmore said.
There's more in the article, if you wish to read further.
From what I can see, the investigation is ongoing. Article 32 hearings haven't occurred yet. (streiff, correct me if I'm wrong here--I can't tell from the news stories I can find). An Article 32 hearing is the military's equivalent of a grand jury. The defense will have counsel present, and that counsel can do a lot more than he/she could in a civilian courtroom. From the Navy JAG Corps website
The defense is given wide latitude in cross-examining witnesses. If the commander details an attorney to represent the United States, this government representative will normally conduct a direct examination of the government witnesses. This is followed by cross-examination by the defense and examination by the investigating officer upon completion of questioning by both counsel. Likewise, if a defense witness is called, the defense counsel will normally conduct a direct examination followed by a government cross-examination. After redirect examination by the defense counsel, or completion of questioning by both counsel, the investigating officer may conduct additional examination.
Bottom line---this process has lots of safeguards built in for the accused. If they have a strong case, and if their counsel can poke holes in the government's case, then it's unlikely this will progress past the Article 32
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
There were other related links also.
A couple of the articles had discrepancies. One stated that the incident took place along a 10 mile stretch of highway, while the other claims it was a six mile stetch.
There are claims by the implicated Marines that their unit received incoming fire after the carbomber rammed the convoy.
I have no idea what the rules of engagement were for the convoy.
My greatest concern is that an incident like this will put our troops and the greater mission in future peril.
I'm most concerned about related units maintaining a reputation for honor and integrity, and for this reason I hope the truth is borne out and justice is served. Then the others can move on and continue their mission.
unit wasn't prepared. MARSOC is relatively new and some feel this unit was pushed to be operational before they were ready. My sources are two retired USMC and SOF officers who I've know for many years and are now civilian contractors in Afghanistan. I doubt this will go beyond an article 32.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Marine senior NCO at Marine Corps staff (Henderson Hall) is that the unit "went cowboy." Like I said, I don't know but right now I don't see how this can be defended.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
because I knew Force Recon itself wasn't under Special Ops command, at least as of 2001, and I haven't really seen any changes to that status.
From what I've read, that organization is dedicated to raising awareness and raising money for legal representation. As you noted, the disciplinary and legal processes will ensue. They are not asking for anything akin to a pardon or a free pass. This organization appears to be committed to making sure they have good legal counsel and to help combat assumptions and lies that are spread through agenda driven media outlets like the New York Times.
I personally don't know much about this case as I do some of the other cases, but I do know that the media and the politicians have no problem using our soldiers as anti-war props and sacrificial lambs to further their anti-war agenda.
I applaud this organization for speaking truth about and combating the lies of the New York Times.
IMO that includes the means to pay for civilian counsel, if they so choose.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I haven't heard enough to knock me off that position.
The action taken here is only appropriate and not overtly punitive.
As noted in one of my last posts, it appears the Taliban, et al are trying to reinvigorate the impression that we are killing an extraordinary amount of civilians. This misinformation hides the fact it is their tactic to hide amongst civilians and put them in line of direct action.
Any incident giving the slightest appearance we are not acting within boundaries and observing articulated military decorum can be very damaging.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report